The Language of Vampyr

Hiya, Kandinsky! What you think about this post from a few pages back?

Now, you ask if I have evidence that the orbs over Mexico were a DoD UFO simulation test. I do. It was not a UFO simulation. It was a drill to
test the new generation of optical decoys, a spinoff of the dazzlers development program. Within the framework of that program there is a mature
program aiming at developing powerful tactical LED and NON-LED flashlights. A small airborne vehicle fitted with those tactical flashlights looks as a
powerful bright shinning... UFO. They are not meant to illuminate the battlefield, they are meant to blind the enemy's infra-red sensing systems so
that you can position your troops safely on the battlefield.

If the TO is in daylight, you need to use a variant of the system, which is the one that was tested near those AFBs in NM, AZ, and UT. The tests
outside American soil are done to preserve the spirit of the law, which states something that no weapons can be tested on unaware American citizens or
populated areas.

At some point in the development you need to test these weapons in real scenarios. So, you go to the closest place available which happens to be
Mexico. Mexico has some advantages for your test program: they do fiercely believe in UFOs, which is all you need to cover the development of new
weapons.

You have nothing at all to apologise for.
Having felt as much frustration as many others have done, does not require an apology.
It was the time for FL to walk away again, having sowed the seeds they wished to sow.

You weren't offensive, a few wild fires were intentionally started to provide the smoke for a hasty retreat, happened before and people were left
figuring if they were to blame, laugh and move on.

I mean all in all the second coming was a waste of time if they weren't going to provide any hard evidence to back up their claims, i already got
their suggested scenario, but while an interest in reverse engineering alien technology remains a maybe an interest in forward engineering human
cultural development is case proven, the former could just be the cover story for the latter.

originally posted by: HyphenSt1
To what extent is music a language in itself?

That is an interesting question and idea. From my perspective, much like mathematics, I don't understand the written language of music. I can count
out a beat though.

The drum was and still is, amongst the Finnic-Ugaric peoples for example, a central aspect of social and religious practices. Mythology surrounds the
discovery/invention of musical instruments, and rhythmic dance remains an important part of social and cultural behaviours. So, definately, music and
rhythm are languages, but written down formalises the language and builds barriers between understanding. Music as a natural language, I suspect, can
only be experienced. But then, I am tone deaf and can't carry a single note.

originally posted by: HyphenSt1
is it useful to think of spoken language, music, art, etc, as all different "colors on a pallet" on the same spectrum of expressive vocabulary
typically available to the human being?

..and if so, do you think that this language will eventually be able to be taught and treated as a fluid vocabulary, to where music and art can be
made with such direct intent that "the message" of the creator of the art won't be lost on the audience? I understand that certain esoteric artists
and composers have attempted (and occasionally accomplished) this in certain ways, but without initiation into the symbolic vocabulary of the artist,
"the message" cannot register consciously in the mind of the observer. (though I do think that certain "symbolic vocabularies" can register certain
concepts in the subconscious, because we all share many internal archetypes)

I've been trying to perfect the "K!" sound found in some African languages. It's a kind of clicking made at the back of the throat. It seems to
require a musculatory control that I am lacking. I may not be up to the challenge.

The purpose of "symbolic vocabularies" is to convey greater meaning in shorthand form or over time and place. The esoteric nature of the expression
depends upon who the artist is and to whom the artist is communicating. If you cannot understand the symbology consciously it is because you are not
the intended audience. An artist however is generally keen to communicate the basis of their inspiration, and these things can be learnt,
explanations will generally be forthcoming if you seek them out and you can find what they wanted to portray, it more often has to do with fashion and
courtly dramas overlaid onto myth given a new frame of reference than any great understanding of esoterism. Blake, Joyce, Schumann exceptions that
prove the rule. Art is about experience, about looking or listening, feeling or smelling, something that is capable of transforming the way in which
you perceive, even the person next to you though cannot experience it in the same way that you can and engagement with symbology with give you a
reflective experience whether you understand it as it was intended or simply apply your own meaning to it. It very much depends upon what you want to
learn from it, or not learn as the case may be.

My point is, if the message is lost on the audience, is it through lack of effort on the part of the artist, or is it on the part of the audience?
There are symbols that are still in use today that are derived from very ancient symbols, but that does not mean that the meaning is fixed. I think
Direne said the same earlier, you can only understand symbols in the context to which they applied. A triangle, or the Greek Delta, could mean yoni
or river mouth, but it basically meant vulva and because of that it was used to describe all things vulva-like. Every word that begins with the
letter "d" in English would denote it's vulva-like properties to the ancient Greeks. Symbology is transient and environmentally dependent.

Natural languages, like those with the K! reflect the sounds of the environment. Written music and mathematics both insist on far too much ordering
to be entirely natural. Give a group of kids some pans and spoons and they soon work out what to do with them.

I really like your points and I hope that Direne will answer your questions.

I did enjoy thinking about symbology in that way though, I haven't tried to look at it like that before, it was quite challenging. I think that there
are better ways of communicating certain forms of information but not without first understanding the process, getting too formulaic and the message
is lost I believe.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.